Fractional reserve vs. ZERO reserve banking

There are no laws of the universe according to optatron. (Wait for the contradiction) .... ;)

Never said that.

I never denied gravity, Newton's 1st, 2nd, 3rd laws of motion if that's what you're talking about.

There is no double edged sword of FREEDOM. People will make good or bad decisions REGARDLESS of their overlords / in slavery or in freedom. That is human nature. Your distinction is erroneous and fallacious.

then why should we have freedom if people aren't going to make better choices?
 
There are no laws of the universe according to optatron. (Wait for the contradiction) .... ;)

There is no double edged sword of FREEDOM. People will make good or bad decisions REGARDLESS of their overlords / in slavery or in freedom. That is human nature. Your distinction is erroneous and fallacious.

Freedom alows individuals to make choices.

They may make choices that turn out to be good or bad for them, but they should have the right to decide the choices in their life they make..

But I DO advocate they are able to make those choices for themselves, rather than have their choices told to them that they must accept.
 
Last edited:
Freedom alows individuals to make choices.

They may make choices that turn out to be good or bad for them, but they should have the right to decide the choices in their life they make..

But I DO advocate they are able to make those choices for themselves, rather than have their choices told to them that they must accept.

Obviously... in a free society, you can choose to violate the NAP.. or commit fraud... or rape... theft.. violence..

But Libertarianism is about justice.

"Radical Privatization and other Libertarian Conundrums by Walter Block

Block, Walter. 2002. “Radical Privatization and other Libertarian Conundrums,” The International Journal of Politics and Ethics, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 165-175

"Even more narrowly, libertarianism may properly be construed solely as a theory of punishment. If someone uses coercion, then it is proper to utilize physical force against him, with the goal of rectifying the injustice, compensating the victim, as much as possible7"​

Enter private courts, arbitration, pda's etc. :D
 
There are no laws of the universe according to optatron. (Wait for the contradiction) .... ;)

There is no double edged sword of FREEDOM. People will make good or bad decisions REGARDLESS of their overlords / in slavery or in freedom. That is human nature. Your distinction is erroneous and fallacious.

i disagree,

there is a double edged sword of freedom as some will use their freedom to make good choices and some will use it to make bad choices, my point is individuals need freedom to make their own choices, so if they make bad choices, they have no one to blame except themselves for their fate.
 
meaning what? freedom is only a good thing?

Yes. Libertinism is not freedom though.

Freedom = Natural Law -> Natural rights -> Natural justice.

Non aggression axiom (principle) + Lockean/Rothbardian homesteading rights... applied to everything. ;)

Never said that.

I never denied gravity, Newton's 1st, 2nd, 3rd laws of motion if that's what you're talking about.

So you believe in Natural law? ;) Why only in the natural sciences, and not the social sciences? :D

then why should we have freedom if people aren't going to make better choices?

The example I gave was utilitarian. As with Ron Paul, I agree with natural rights and natural law.

Ron Paul said:
"The strongest motivating force in my political activities is to live free since I was born free. Liberty is my first goal. The free market is the only result that can be expected from a free society. I do not accept individual freedom because the market is efficient. Even if the free market were less “efficient” than central planning, I would still prefer my personal freedom to coercion. Fortunately, I don’t need to make a choice. Austrian economics upholds the market’s efficiency, and that reinforces my overwhelming desire and right to be free."

:)
 
i disagree,

there is a double edged sword of freedom as some will use their freedom to make good choices and some will use it to make bad choices, my point is individuals need freedom to make their own choices, so if they make bad choices, they have no one to blame except themselves for their fate.

Yes. And the individuals failure is NOT FREEDOMS FAULT. It is theirs. ;)
 
Obviously... in a free society, you can choose to violate the NAP.. or commit fraud... or rape... theft.. violence..

But Libertarianism is about justice.

"Radical Privatization and other Libertarian Conundrums by Walter Block

Block, Walter. 2002. “Radical Privatization and other Libertarian Conundrums,” The International Journal of Politics and Ethics, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 165-175

"Even more narrowly, libertarianism may properly be construed solely as a theory of punishment. If someone uses coercion, then it is proper to utilize physical force against him, with the goal of rectifying the injustice, compensating the victim, as much as possible7"​

Enter private courts, arbitration, pda's etc. :D

I belive the universe we exist in has a law built in to it and physics agrees.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Those whould misuse their freedom for evil , will be met with a harsh counter reaction from the side of good.
 
I belive the universe we exist in has a law built in to it and physics agrees.

Yeah, that is the natural sciences. The correct epistemology for that is the scientific method.

However, in the social sciences - the scientific method FAILS. Empiricism and positivism are a JOKE. They are the WRONG EPISTEMOLOGY. See: Keynesian, Monetarism etc.

Those who have got it right. = Austrian School of Economics.

Why?

Because they have the CORRECT EPISTEMOLOGY! And no-one else does.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Natural sciences mate. Not the social sciences. WRONG science ;)

Those whould misuse their freedom for evil , will be met with a harsh counter reaction from the side of good.

Individuals act. Your mysticism fails.
 
Those whould misuse their freedom for evil , will be met with a harsh counter reaction from the side of good.

From EXPERIENCE.......

I have seen it time and time again. If I ever see otherwise, I will recount, but I haven't yet.
 
YOU DID NOT READ MYSTERY OF BANKING, which is why you are unaware that Rothbard proposed that free market actions would be all that were needed to eventually make fractional reserve banking unfeasible. No private courts, no regulatory body would be needed. Rothbard does not propose these mechanisms at all. Read Chapter 8 of Mystery of Banking.

You are a jerk who loves to shoot his mouth off without bothering to understand anything at all, not what a poster is trying to say, nor even the stuff that YOU yourself claim to be quoting from.

This is what I posted verbatim:



and this is how you replied:



Apparently, YOU WERE WRONG, and all your efforts to try to worm your way out of admitting so by setting up strawmen (e.g. claiming I said things which I did not) are rather pathetic and frankly, despicable.

Grow up.

Popcorn.gif
 
So you believe in Natural law? ;) Why only in the natural sciences, and not the social sciences? :D
:)

I don't observe or believe human action and human nature the same way you do, I don't know how else to say it.
 
From EXPERIENCE.......

I have seen it time and time again. If I ever see otherwise, I will recount, but I haven't yet.

Oh, so you've never personally experienced otherwise... AND THAT makes it a universal law until YOU see otherwise!

LMFAO! :rolleyes:

Get reading...

Don't you mean socialist sciences?

I think most of us here believe in Freedom over socialism unlike you Conza.

HAHAHA... WOW. Just the level of ignorance here is OFF the chart! :eek: ! Economics is a social science... philosophy, economics, history... yep... you have no idea what you are talking about. Nice attempt at a strawman though... no really... awesome! :rolleyes:

An Introduction to Economic Reasoning by David Gordon

"As the only text of its kind, this book is engaging, funny, filled with examples, and never talks down to the student. It is perfect for homeschoolers, but every student, young or old, will benefit from it. Indeed, a student familiar with its contents will be fully prepared to see through the fallacies of the introductory economics texts used at the college level."​

Epistemological Problems of Economics by Ludwig Von Mises

"The science of human action that strives for universally valid knowledge is the theoretical system whose hitherto best elaborated branch is economics. In all of its branches this science is a priori, not empirical. Like logic and mathematics, it is not derived from experience; it is prior to experience. It is, as it were, the logic of action and deed."​

Economic Science and the Austrian Method by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Praxeology and Economic Science:

Sec I : "It is well-known that Austrians disagree strongly with other schools of economic thought..."
Sec II : "Non-praxeological schools of thought mistakenly believe that relationships between certain events are well-established empirical laws..."

On Praxeology and the Praxeological Foundation of Epistemology

Sec I : "As have most great and innovative economists, Ludwig von Mises intensively and repeatedly analyzed the problem of the logical status of economic propositions..."
Sec II : "Let me turn to Mises's solution..."
Sec III : "I shall now turn to my second goal: the explanation of why and how praxeology also provides the foundation for epistemology..."
Sec IV : "In so establishing the place of praxeology proper, I have come full circle in outlining the system of rationalist philosophy as ultimately grounded in the action axiom..."

Counter Revolution of Science by F.A. Hayek

The problem that Hayek deals with reaches to the core of how economists think about their discipline. There was once such a thing as the human sciences of which economics was part. The goal was to discover and elucidate the exact laws that govern the interaction of people with the material world. It had its own methods and own recommendations.

Then something changed. Science became entirely positivistic in its orientation. Economics was changed from a human science into a poor cousin of the natural sciences that applied positivist methods, and to no great end, for human beings do not move about like molecules but rather engage in choices and unpredictable actions.

What Hayek does in this treatise is link the change in methodology to a change in politics. The economy and people began to be regarded as a collective entity to be examined as if whole societies should be studied as we study planets or other non-volitional beings. It then began to make mistakes, treating facts as theories and theories as contingent. And thus is the state invited in to treat society as a laboratory.

This re-definition of what constitutes science thus had a terrible and even deadly result for human well being and liberty. Science had turned from being a friend of freedom into being employed as its enemy.​


The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science by Ludwig Von Mises

There are two senses in which this book is indeed ultimate: it deals with the very core of economics as a science, and it is the last book that he wrote.

As his career was coming to a close, Mises saw that that fiercest battles over economic questions come down to issues of epistemology: how do we determine what is and what is not true in economics? How do we even know that economics is a valid science? What are the methods we should use in studying economics? What constitutes a true proposition and how do we know?

These questions matter because, as Mises says, the very future of freedom and civilization itself depend on economic science, the development and application of which was "the most spectacular event of modern history."​

I don't observe or believe human action and human nature the same way you do, I don't know how else to say it.

And how do I observe it? Don't strawman now. ;) Try remember back to what passages from MES and Human Action I have posted previously... that should give you a hint.

Then go ahead and refute them.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that is the natural sciences. The correct epistemology for that is the scientific method.

However, in the social sciences - the scientific method FAILS. Empiricism and positivism are a JOKE. They are the WRONG EPISTEMOLOGY. See: Keynesian, Monetarism etc.

And you were asking me if I should believe in social sciences?

Keynesian is based on scientific method?

You keep saying Austrian is praxelogy, but then it's not based on scientific method?



Those who have got it right. = Austrian School of Economics.

Why?

Because they have the CORRECT EPISTEMOLOGY! And no-one else does.

Yes says you.

Natural sciences mate. Not the social sciences. WRONG science ;)

He was speaking in metaphor, every act has a consequence, OR IS THAT WRONG TOO???

Individuals act. Your mysticism fails.
JUST not as you like them to act.
 
Oh, so you've never personally experienced otherwise... AND THAT makes it a universal law until YOU see otherwise!

no, didn't say that.

But observing something helps create a reason to believe it's part of universal law.



And how do I observe it? Don't strawman now. ;)

Exactly my point, so why should I trust your interpretation just because you have a list of books that say what you want to believe?

Try remember back to what passages from MES and Human Action I have posted previously... that should give you a hint.

Then go ahead and refute them.

refresh, specifically for the sake of this discussion.
 
Don't you mean socialist sciences?

I think most of us here believe in Freedom over socialism unlike you Conza.

exactly

I don't care how much he denies he's a socialist, or anti-statist, he quotes the NAP, then turns around and says we all have to follow his beliefs of NL or morality, because only HE has it right.

Nobody gets to disagree with him, yet he claims he believes in freedom.
 
Oh, so you've never personally experienced otherwise... AND THAT makes it a universal law until YOU see otherwise!

LMFAO! :rolleyes:

Get reading...



HAHAHA... WOW. Just the level of ignorance here is OFF the chart! :eek: ! Economics is a social science... philosophy, economics, history... yep... you have no idea what you are talking about.





And how do I observe it? Don't strawman now. ;) Try remember back to what passages from MES and Human Action I have posted previously... that should give you a hint.

Then go ahead and refute them.

9000 posts, mostly antaganistoc against the freedom movement, do you really think we can't see what you are, despite quoting austrian economic books?

You can tell a tree by it's fruit, and your tree produces rotten fruit.
 
exactly

I don't care how much he denies he's a socialist, or anti-statist, he quotes the NAP, then turns around and says we all have to follow his beliefs of NL or morality, because only HE has it right.

Nobody gets to disagree with him, yet he claims he believes in freedom.

You have every right to disagree with me, and I have every right to rebutt why you disagree with me...that is freedom.

I don't recall me coming to your house with a gun to make you agree with me.
 
Back
Top